Gerry McCann will tell the Leveson Inquiry into journalistic standards that the newspaper industry's system of self-regulation was "hopelessly inadequate" in protecting his family from the excesses of the press, as we reported on our front page yesterday.

Lawyer David Sherborne this week told the inquiry that, when Mr McCann gives evidence, he will tell of the ordeal his family suffered at the hands of the media.

His evidence will be a "perfect example" of the inability of the press watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), to prevent such behaviour.

It is well established that the conduct of some newspapers in this case was reprehensible.

One of the key questions for the inquiry, however, is what this says about the effectiveness of the PCC. And that inevitably leads on to the issue of whether it should be replaced by a more robust watchdog.

Nobody could seriously argue that the PCC was effective in the McCanns' case and there is a strong argument for reform. However, creating a more robust watchdog also has its dangers.

Should it have statutory powers to investigate newspapers and impose legally enforceable penalties? Who should sit on such a body and how would they be appointed?

We are not necessarily against the creation of a new, tougher, press watchdog.

However, great care is needed to ensure any such body is not so draconian that the freedom of the press to report properly and in the public interest is damaged.

However, great care is needed to ensure any such body is not so draconian that the freedom of the press to report properly and in the public interest is damaged.

I bet Pat Brown chokes on her cornflakes when she reads this!! Its not the PCC or other 'body' that matters - its the power of the courts that counts ultimately! That's why she is having to sue the Mc's - to uphold freedom of speech!